Lifeline/Low-Income Consumers

It was to be one hour of oral arguments about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) Universal Service Fund (USF) program, considering whether Congress delegated too much of its authority when it created the program in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead, U.S. Supreme Court justices spent more than two and a half hours peppering attorneys with questions about the nature of USF, whether the statute fails to set limits on the amount of funding it can collect and whether those fees are, in fact, taxes on the American public that Congress never debated.

This country has long valued ensuring connectivity for all—regardless of income, location, or circumstance. The Universal Service Fund or USF has been an essential part of that promise, providing the funding necessary to connect millions of Americans. Whether through a phone line, broadband connection, or both, access to communications has been critical for economic opportunity and equality. When we invest in connectivity, we invest in people. We invest in their futures.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases Nos.

Lawyers defending the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to manage a longstanding $8.1 billion broadband subsidy expressed cautious optimism ahead of the March 26 Supreme Court oral arguments in FCC v.

Community anchor institutions (CAIs)—such as schools, libraries, community health centers, and similar organizations—play a crucial role in offering free or affordable internet access to underserved communities. In many areas, the connectivity options offered by CAIs—whether on-site (via wired or wireless networks) or through remote programs like hotspot lending—are among the few affordable and reliable services available.

Congress is supposed to write the laws, but these days it often prefers to delegate to the executive branch, and then cheer or boo the results. Twice amid the New Deal, but not since, the Supreme Court struck down statutes as abdications of Congress’s lawmaking power. Yet the Court has another chance in the case that the Justices will consider Wednesday, FCC v. Consumers’ Research.

Federal law seeks to make communications technology like telephones and the internet, in the words of one older statute, “available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.” A longstanding federal program that seeks to implement this goal is now before the Supreme Court, in a case known as FCC v. Consumers’ Research, and the stakes could be enormous.

The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Managing Director (OMD) announces that the proposed universal service contribution factor for the second quarter of 2025 will be 0.366 or 36.6 percent. Contributions to the federal universal service support mechanisms are determined using a quarterly contribution factor calculated by the FCC. The FCC calculates the quarterly contribution factor based on the ratio of total projected quarterly costs of the universal service support mechanisms to contributors’ total projected collected end-user interstate and international telecommunications re

Regardless of the final form it ends up taking, the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program is poised to play a key role in addressing rural connectivity. But the rural access divide isn’t the only issue we need to worry about, according to New Street Research Policy Analyst Blair Levin.

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) is encouraging eligible organizations to apply for grant funding to improve the availability and affordability of telecommunications services to Wisconsin residents. The grant funding opportunities include the Nonprofit Access Grant Program and the Lifeline Outreach Grant Program. Both grant programs are funded by the Universal Service Fund to help Wisconsinites access essential telecommunications services.